Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman in opposition to this amendment.

I understand the gentleman's concerns about what's happened in Afghanistan, what is happening in Afghanistan. Many of us have been to Afghanistan many times. That country was totally destroyed by the Russians during the prior war. They were left with nothing. It is probably, if not the poorest, one of the poorest countries on the face of the Earth, rubble on rubble.

And when we leave, and we are going to leave Afghanistan in 2014, what we're saying is we're going to give them the basic parts of energy production, which is what the primary source of this money is going to develop.

So I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and join the gentleman in his opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the Afghan National Army Special Forces are the most capable component of the Afghan National Security Forces and have made significant strides toward becoming an independent and effective force in Afghanistan.

The only path forward to getting out of Afghanistan is to make sure that we have an effective army, special force, that can do the necessary work to make sure that the fragile Afghan governance that is there survives.

The purpose of this amendment is not to limit the Afghan Special Forces but to further restrict the use of the helicopter it employs to support its mission. The development of the Afghan Army Special Operators remains a critical component of the overall operation structure and strategy to sustain the transition to Afghan security lead.

In other words, if we want to get out of there by 2014, 2015, the Afghan Air Force must succeed. And it has a history, whether we like it or not, with the Mi-17. It's more efficient to expand its fleet and build on their existing knowledge of maintaining that fleet than to completely shift to an entirely different aircraft.

Additionally, U.S. helicopters are more technologically advanced. They're a better helicopter, I'll agree. But it would further prolong the timelines of getting the AAF where they need to be to completely take over the program.

The Mi-17 has been certified by the Department of Defense and is to be the right aircraft for the missions in Afghanistan. The Mi-17 has a long history in Afghanistan and was designed for the high altitude terrain there.

So I reluctantly oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, we're not talking about a helicopter manufacturer that would suffer. It's the combat unit in Afghanistan that would be devastated and unable to fulfill its mission, and if it's not able to fulfill its mission, then we will not have a capable military to take over when the United States leaves in 2014.

I'm not going to defend Russia or their foreign policy and what they're doing in Syria, but we do want Afghanistan to succeed. So I reluctantly must oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. I'm the first to admit that the Department of Defense should not be immune to reasonably based reductions. We should be doing that. That's exactly what we've been doing the past few years and will continue to do this year.

This bill that we are deciding today and tomorrow is $3.4 billion below the President's request. In fact, over the past 3 fiscal years, this committee has produced defense budgets which totaled $71 billion below the request, only $32 billion of which has been due to sequestration.

The Department is already facing another $44 billion arbitrary reduction in spending if we don't stop sequestration from going into effect in FY 2014. Any further immediate and arbitrary reductions would likely bring the Department to a grinding halt, perhaps past the point of recovery.

Specifically, reductions could require reducing/canceling training for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; reducing Air Force flight training; delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles; and delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and military barracks.

Finally, the allocation of this bill is essentially in line with both the Ryan budget, as well as the Defense authorization bill. National security should not be subject to partisan politics. Instead, we should show our support for these brave men and women who have sacrificed so much and continue to do so.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have made significant cuts in our national defense and continue to do so. We are at lowest levels as a percentage of GDP expenditures for our national security in a long time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This cut is not required by any treaty. There is no strategic analysis, as the gentlelady said. There is no estimate of how this would affect the balance between the United States and other nuclear powers.

Events over the last several years, as well as through analysis, such as that done under the Nuclear Posture Review, have confirmed that we need to maintain and revitalize our nuclear deterrent.

I rise in strong opposition to this reckless amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source